Opinion

Global order is crumbling, but even without Trump it was doomed

Columnist, broadcaster and executive director of the Centre for Independent Studies

June 15, 2019 — 12.00am

June 15, 2019 — 12.00am

One of America’s great 20th century intellectuals Walter Lippmann once warned: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” This advice is especially justified when the prevailing dogma is wrong, which is the case with respect to what is called the rules-based international order.

It is widely believed that the world in which we live – the institutions of governance, the rules and norms – is largely inspired by the kind of global leadership the US has exercised for decades and that the liberal order has been a profoundly positive force for promoting peace and prosperity. How the US-led wars in Vietnam and Iraq helped enforce those ideals is far from clear.

Donald Trump's America First agenda is blamed for threatening the post-World War II rules-based order.Credit:AP

In any case, the “rules-based international order” itself has become a popular expression only in recent times. A Factiva research search of the world’s newspapers and news wires shows that in the three decades from 1985 to 2015 the expression was used on 319 occasions. Since Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign four years ago this weekend (June 16, 2015), the term has been used a whopping 5,855 times.

It is no wonder why Western journalists, bureaucrats and policymakers increasingly refer to the rules-based international order. It is in deep trouble, and its destruction is being blamed on Trump’s “America First” agenda.

Advertisement

By raising tariffs, weakening alliances, withdrawing Washington from global agreements, the US President has left a void in world leadership. As a result, he has undermined faith in the open, liberal international order.

Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, was speaking for many when he argued a year ago: “The rules-based international order is being challenged, quite surprisingly, not by the usual suspects but by its main architect and guarantor: the US.”

The most important requirement for building a liberal international order, at least since the end of the Cold War, has been to spread liberal democracy across the globe. For the past three decades, Western elites widely believed that politics had evolved to the point that there was no sensible alternative to liberal democracy.

However, democracy promotion is not just difficult, it often poisons relations with other nations and sometimes leads to disastrous wars, such as Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011. Nationalism within the target state, according to Mearsheimer, is the main obstacle to the promotion of democracy.

Furthermore, the liberal order’s tendency to privilege multilateral institutions over domestic considerations – as well as its deep commitment to porous, if not open borders - has had toxic political effects inside the liberal states themselves.

A pro-Brexit protester demonstrates outside the Houses of Parliament in London. The British people felt they gave away too much sovereignty.Credit:AP

Those policies clash with nationalism over key issues, such as sovereignty and national identity. According to Mearsheimer, nationalism is the most powerful ideology on the planet. As a result, it invariably trumps liberalism whenever the two clash, thus undermining the order at its core.

Look at Europe: whereas during the 1990s it was set to become the brightest star in the liberal galaxy, by the late 2010s, it was in serious trouble. In recent years, populist, nativist parties have been growing more powerful. In 2016, the British people felt their nation had surrendered too much power to Brussels that was it was time to reassert British sovereignty.

Add to this the rise of China and the revival of Russian power. Neither Beijing nor Moscow wants US-led coalitions in its neighbourhood, much less on its borders. Thus, it is hardly surprising that China is busily asserting a sphere of influence in areas on which its future stability and prosperity depend. Meanwhile, the Kremlin plays hardball to protect what Russia sees as vital strategic interests in its near abroad.

The upshot is that the “unipolar moment” that has defined US global hegemony since the collapse of Soviet Communism is over. Which means there is no chance of maintaining any kind of rules-based international order for the foreseeable future.

You won’t find Mearsheimer’s realist analysis at the United Nations, European Union or Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but it helps explain the fate of the rules-based world so beloved by Western elites. What kind of order will dominate the emerging global landscape has a claim to be the key question of our time.

Tom Switzer is executive director of the Centre for Independent Studies and a presenter at the ABC’s Radio National.